svn commit: r406959 - in head/math: . py-cdecimal

[John Marino]

On 1/23/2016 9:47 AM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Would it make you happier if I take maintainership and drop it tomorrow?
> :) Technically not forbidden. Just to give you some background, I used
> to maintain few hundred ports back in the days, so I am very discreet now.

I assume people use this trick often.  It would make me happy to drop it
after 1 year.   It sounds like it won't require much maintenance so that
shouldn't be a big deal.  It's still sketchy but nobody can really say
anything at that point.


> 
> It just says about some rules being quite out of date / unflexible,
> IMHO. As an average joe user, between port not being present and port
> being maintained by community I'd definitely prefer the latter, as it
> gives me a good chance that it would just work. It would have saved me
> some time today (which is why I did it, not because I've had nothing
> else better to do on Friday afternoon). And if it does not work, it
> gives user incentive to file a PR. So it's win-win all over the place.
> For myself, it just saves me a trouble to having another chunk of
> private code in my own port repo.


I am very happy with the requirement that new ports *must* be
maintained.  You are setting an example.  Normal users (without your
history and experience) see that it's possible to introduce unmaintained
ports through bugzilla and will try it.  We don't want that.

I've seen this effect firsthand in pkgsrc.  Believe me, you don't want
to allow new ports to have no maintainer.  It's a disaster.  If nobody
is willing to maintain it, it probably doesn't merit being in the
collection.

John